Hi Robert RFC 3326 already defines SIP / Q.850 as a possible protocol values and this draft is proposing that both can co-exist in the same response. So some example would help better understand on how they will be added Regards Ranjit -----Original Message----- From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 10:19 AM To: Avasarala, Ranjit (Nokia - US/Naperville) <ranjit.avasarala@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: Todd Herr <todd.herr@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; art@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; sipcore@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [sipcore] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons-01 That will happen in a document that defines such a protocol, such as the one referenced in STIR. This document should remain minimal. RjS Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 4, 2022, at 10:02 AM, Avasarala, Ranjit (Nokia - US/Naperville) <ranjit.avasarala@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Todd > > I agree - the draft could provide few examples of where we would use SIP Reason header with multiple protocol values in the same SIP response > > Regards > Ranjit > > -----Original Message----- > From: sipcore <sipcore-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Todd Herr via Datatracker > Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 9:51 AM > To: art@xxxxxxxx > Cc: draft-ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; sipcore@xxxxxxxx > Subject: [sipcore] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons-01 > > Reviewer: Todd Herr > Review result: Ready with Nits > > As someone unfamiliar with SIP Reason Header Fields, I'm of the opinion that perhaps an example of a header field with multiple values might be instructive as a contrast to the examples shown in RFC 3326, but I do not feel strongly enough about this to hold up the document. > > > _______________________________________________ > sipcore mailing list > sipcore@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
